This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Recently the US city of New York, decided that BLM protestors that felt victimized by the police preventing from running amok, deserve 21500 USD (28267877.5 KRW) each.
Such a payout somewhat changes the calculus of participating in protests, peaceful or otherwise. Previously by joining a protest one showed willingness to sacrifice time and risk being temporarily detained.
But now the what the Hot Coffee Incident was in common perception notable for, harm suffered being greatly outweighed by compensation, has come true. Thus making protesting a net-gain, unless one views publicly supporting BLM to be so immoral, as there existing no sum high enough for which one would do it.
In related olds, DisruptJ6 protestors, despite alleging molestation going on for a longer period of time, and interfering with bodily autonomy in much more invasive ways, have yet to be given money.
So, when Group A files a lawsuit and reaches a settlement, some other group which has not filed a lawsuit has somehow been treated unjustly? Perhaps you should wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens, before you get all outraged.
If we observe disparate outcomes between two social groupings, it's possible that these disparities arise from different behavior on the part of the groups' members. Alternatively, if we also observe that one of the groups enjoys a position of power over the other, and demonstrates strong antipathy for the other, we might consider the hypothesis that the disparities arise from some form of discrimination and oppression.
With a system as complicated as modern society, outcomes are the yardstick by which processes are judged. Failure to design, maintain, and enforce these systems results in people losing confidence in them. Once lost, such confidence is difficult to regain. Priors are established, and shape perception moving forward.
Yes, but only if the two groups are similarly positioned. If Group A gets $X from the settlement of a lawsuit while Group B gets $Y, the difference might have arisen from some form of discrimination and oppression. But if Group B has not yet filed a lawsuit, the hypothesis is nonsensical, because it is premature. That’s why I said OP "should wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens, before you get all outraged"
It’s also possible that they don’t file a lawsuit because they know how skewed the system is. In a situation where the groups are already obviously treated differently, it makes little sense to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer. A black guy denied entrance to an elite university because he lives in South Africa under apartheid isn’t going to sue the school for it.
Given the judicial system's response to the letter sent by the Jan 6 defendants, color me skeptical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link